Daily Digest: Piers Morgan Doesn’t Read TTAG

I’m a Second Amendment absolutist. No to background checks, mandatory firearms training and paperwork. Yes to machine guns and restoring felons’ gun rights. And yes to not appearing like a total nutcase in the media. During close encounters with jobbing journos I try to make my perspective palatable to people on the fence re: gun rights. Not by changing my views. By combining passion, humor and common sense. Equally, I’m careful not to deride the journalists’ skepticism or outright antagonism. In the main, their prejudice is based on ignorance. The Age of Miracles is not past; every now and then a reporter wants to learn about guns. A Washington Post reporter’s coming to RI Monday to bust some caps with the rabbi and me. I don’t know if we’ll get a fair hearing. But this much I know: the truth will out. Make the jump for my latest attempt to set the record straight . . .

Doesn’t Chicago’s Mayor have something better to do? Emanuel To Banks: Stop Supporting Gun Makers chicago.cbslocal.com

I can’t get to Texas soon enough. “A little fun with a Suppressed Mini Uzi Submachine Gun” (above).

Michael Moore: ‘The NRA Is Doomed’ And people like him aren’t. “We’re never gonna get rid of crazy people.” huffingtonpost.com

Saying that, someone’s career inside the NRA seems to be on a terminal glide path. NRA lobbyist: Pro-gun ad referring to Obama’s children ‘ill-advised’ usnews.nbcnews.com

Stephen King’s released a pro-gun control anti-NRA e-book essay. The aforementioned WaPo gives us the down-low:

Determined and at times profane, the 8,000-word essay confronts NRA members straight on: “In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings,” King writes, “gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage.”

Clever angle (courtesy sfgate.com)

Despite a turnout south of 40 people at their first rally (clever angle above), huffingtonpost.com felt obliged to publish One Million Moms For Gun Control: Origins Of A Movement.

sfgate.com‘s on board with Million Moms group pushes for gun control

Kevin Nugent owner of The Shooter Shop (courtesy jsonline.com)

Shooters Shop owner says gun debate lacks common sense And I say Shooters Shop will soon lack customers. jsonline.com

Special Agent Canino? What are the odds? Agents Shoot Pit Bull Mauling ATF Dog in Arizona officer.com

“Just so you know, I don’t even own a gun, nor does my mom, or dad. But when I’m old enough, I want the right to buy a gun — if I want to – so I can protect the America that I love.” cowboybyte.com

I wonder if she watches CNN . . .

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

92 Responses to Daily Digest: Piers Morgan Doesn’t Read TTAG

  1. avatarR Hampton says:

    RF: do you have an alternative proposal to preventing the mentally ill from buying firearms or do you accept it as something you just have to live with?

    • avatarRydak says:

      Reality is what reality is. Accepting that bad people will do bad things, and sometimes they will do it with guns, is not a choice. Its reality.

      We can ban all the guns and send the army to go door to door, every single home in america. Take them all by force. After it’s done, bad people will still have as many guns as they do now and probably more.

      “Accepting” is not really a valid description, as it will be reality, if you accept it or not.

      • avatarR Hampton says:

        Well, we accept that there will always be people who break laws of all kinds no matter what we do, but that does not detract from the necessity of law. Should we not have laws against drunk driving, or suspend the license of those caught driving drunk? We also prohibit people from driving if they have certain medical conditions like epilepsy or on specific medications. Should we refrain from taking such steps as well?

        • avatarKen says:

          Guess what? Drunks still drive. Medicated people still drive. When I was working the road, I lost exact count of the hundreds of drivers in my 32 year career that I arrested for driving while their license was suspended. We don’t stop everyone else from having cars because some folks break the rules. I’ve never driven drunk. I’ve never commited a criminal act with my guns/ammo/magazines. I guess I’m a potential drunk driver because I’m alive and own a car and on occasion will take a drink. I still get to own a car. I could take a gun and rob a bank, again because I’m alive and own a gun (and a car, the getaway vehicle of choice for bank robbers). Why should I give up my right to own certain guns because of my potential to do something bad with it?

        • avatarJeff says:

          But we don’t ban car’s that travel then 60 mph or limit fuel tanks to 5 gallons to stop the drunks!

        • avatarJeff P says:

          Driving is not a right…..driving is a privilege…

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Should we not have laws against drunk driving, or suspend the license of those caught driving drunk?

          No. Driving drunk and making it home safely did not harm anyone. People should be punished when they harm someone, not because they COULD POTENTIALLY harm someone.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Regardless of what the writer says, if he is against background checks, then he is in favor of letting criminals buy guns. You can’t have it both ways.

        • avatarBill says:

          Last I checked, murder is still illegal.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          Driving is a right. But we listen to government thugs who tell us it is a privilege and meekly go along like sheep. The right to travel is just as important as the right to bear arms and the right to free speech.

        • avatarChas says:

          Laws punish. They don’t prevent.

        • avatarThomasR says:

          “we shouldn’t let criminals or mentally ill people or felons have guns,”,

          I wonder some times at the absolute ability of some people to be faced with reality and STILL insist on believing a fantasy.

          Preventive laws don’t stop people from doing bad things,

          Let’ say that again, preventive laws don’t stop people from doing bad things.

          The war on drugs, preventive laws that try to stop people from voluntarily putting a potentially damaging substance in thier body; a complete and utter failure

          Gun laws trying to prevent criminals from getting guns; do I really need to bring up Chicago or Washington D.C.? A complete and utter failure.

          Laws trying to stop crazy people from getting guns, who defines crazy, the government? Many psycholigists say that wanting a gun is a sign of mental illness, you want them to decide if we should own a gun?

          This is madness, plain and simple, you people who believe in preventive laws obviously are insane , because it is obvious that these laws don’t work or you want to give more power to government that has shown itself to be completely incapable of using that power not just without wisdom, but with brutality and a complete disregard for our lives, our property and our freedom.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Totenglocke, driving drunk is a form of reckless endangerment, and the fact that someone might make it home safely is a matter of pure luck. Someone could also go out into the street and fire a gun and hit no one, but that would be a matter of random chance as well. The point is that in both cases, it’s a willful disregard to the safety of others, and a bad outcome is an obvious likely consequence.

          There are plenty of malum in se crimes that don’t necessarily produce actual harm to someone. If I take a shot at you and miss, and the bullet strikes no one else, then I have physically harmed no person. If you don’t notice the bullet going by, and are oblivious of the attack generally, there wouldn’t even be psychological harm. The law as it stands now would see my act as attempted murder, but it seems to me by your theory, I have committed no crime.

      • avatarpsmcd says:

        Thanks for the link fix Matt. smart, smart young woman. I hope everyone reads this.
        http://cowboybyte.com/18063/14-year-old-girl-speaks-on-2nd-amendment-rights-in-nh-congress/#ixzz2J3MmsmXX

  2. avatarborekfk says:

    That poor girls looks like she’d rather be doing anything other than being at that protest. And I’m sure that includes her 5 hours of math homework. Poor girl.

    • avatarDamon says:

      Also that guys face says “I’m only here because my wife made me”

      • avatarborekfk says:

        I thought that too, I’m sure he’d rather be home watching football or playing a video game with plenty of guns in it.

        • avatarSixpack70 says:

          Actually I think he is stoned out of his mind and has no clue where he is at or what he is doing.

      • avatarSkyMan77 says:

        You can almost see his testicles dangling from his ears… Like earrings….

    • avatarTex74 says:

      Oh, wait till they kill someone, THEN do something about it….nevermind the fact that they got liquored up and drove around. No, that’s ok and responsible. Doesn’t put anyone at risk. O_0

  3. avatarDamon says:

    I’m on a kindle, so I’ll be a ble to read it for free and find out the details, but even before reading, I’ve got to say I’m very disappointed in Stephen King. I’d never looked up what his views on guns were, but now I guess I know. Dunno what I’ll do about reading his books… by far one of my favorite authors.

    • avatarBlindKyle says:

      I know! The first novel he wrote was called THE GUNSLINGER! And it evolved into an eight novel masterpiece of fiction that I still love.

      • avatarRalph says:

        His first novel was “Carrie,” not “The Gunslinger,” which was adapted from “Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came” by Browning. Robert Browning, not John Moses Browning.

    • avatardarkstar says:

      Right on. I love his books, I’m really going to miss them. I can’t, in good conscience, support him buy buying his books any longer.

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      He’s never been the same since he was in that car accident. His last few books haven’t been exactly chart-toppers, so regardless of how much profanity or sincerity his little essay might have, I’m going to chalk this one up to him trying to stay relevant by picking a side in a fight he should’ve sat his ass out on.

    • Stephen King did have this funny ESPN commercial.

  4. avatarSeth says:

    According to Piers it took under a minute to kill 20 people in newtown, what did the shooter do the other 19 minutes it took for cops to get there?

  5. avatarConway Redding says:

    Robert, you’ve lost me with “restore felons’ gun rights,” since I have no confidence that having “paid one’s debt to society” is any indication that the mind-set that resulted in the now ex-felon’s original conviction has been at all altered for the better. Is that all felons, or only those who have not been convicted of a violent crime?

    • avatarfree says:

      I’ve had discussions with liberals on felons’ rights before. When they want to restore their voting privileges, I always say when you trust them enough to own a gun, I’ll trust them enough to vote.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      I have a lot of friends who are recovering addicts, who have years upon years of sobriety and normal life. Should they continue to be prohibited from owning firearms because of something they did 10-15 years ago, but have since become respectable members of society? I think not.

      Also, in PA, if you have a possession charge, any charge, even if a summary or misdemeanor, you are a prohibited person for life. You can get a pardon from the governor, but good luck.

      Have you not changed since you were a teen? your twenties, your thirties? None of us are the people we were even five years ago. Plus, many respectable members of society are ex-felons, and choose to own firearms illegally for self defense, and get caught and sucked back into the system.

      Should there be forgiveness?, I think so.

      • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

        I agree. Like someone (not me) once said here, if you can’t be trusted with a firearm then you can’t be trusted outside of some custodial setting (I’m sure I butchered the exact quote). Anyone mean enough, evil enough, or crazy enough to shoot innocents is going to carry out that crime regardless of that person’s choice of “implement of destruction”. Further, many felons have no choice but to live in less desirable neighborhoods for affordability reasons. Are we sentencing them to death by murder by not allowing them arms? Are we punishing their families as well? At the very least the type of felony committed may have an impact on this decision. Not every felony is a violent felony. And are the former violent felons more likely to continue those violent ways because society tells them that that’s what they are and they can never be anything else? Is there no pathway ever of becoming a full-fledged member of society with all the rights and responsibilities that entails? I don’t have the answers but there’s something wrong about our current system.

    • avatar16V says:

      I shan’t pretend to speak for RF, but the felony angle is always a tricky one to me. There are soooooo many ways to get a felony, there’s a large number of non-violent offenders in that net.

      Either we “fix” people with prison, or we don’t. We know that our prison system is a joke, and is mainly punitive. The only “rehabilitation” is the self-motivated introspection ones gains trying to survive another day.

      Once these guys get out, we have made it very difficult for them to find employment in all sorts of fields. That the recidivism rate isn’t higher than it is, never ceases to amaze me.

      My thought is that if they aren’t violent, and didn’t use a gun to commit a crime against a person, once their sentance has been served and their parole is up, do we let them back in the world or not? Is the price for some dumb college kid flippin’ an oz of blow here and there to be a life without right to self-defense?

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        The problem is that we should be distinguishing between people who have been extremely naughty in non-violent ways and deserve long prison sentences (Madoff et al) VS those who should probably have “HISTORY OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR” tattooed on their foreheads in UV ink.

        When someone from the non-violent felony category completes sentence and probation successfully, their conviction should be automatically expunged unless, through due process, the state establishes good cause that they should continue to wear the “scarlet F”.

        Violent felons, on the other hand, should be on lifetime probation.

    • avatarBob says:

      Very many, if not most felonies are for victimless bullshit crimes.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Robert, you’ve lost me with “restore felons’ gun rights,” since I have no confidence that having “paid one’s debt to society” is any indication that the mind-set that resulted in the now ex-felon’s original conviction has been at all altered for the better.

      Then why are you OK with letting them out of jail? Either they’re reformed and no longer a threat and as such should have full rights, or they are not and should stay in jail.

    • avatarMister Fleas says:

      “Robert, you’ve lost me with “restore felons’ gun rights,” since I have no confidence that having “paid one’s debt to society” is any indication that the mind-set that resulted in the now ex-felon’s original conviction has been at all altered for the better.”
      Cowboy Redding, if ex-felons are so dangerous they cannot be trusted with restoration of their rights, including the right to bear arms, then they should not be free or possibly even alive. Even without legal access to firearms, there are far too many ways for them to cause harm to others than I can list(knives, arson, improvised bombs, illegal firearms, rape, etc).

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      If a person cannot be trusted with a weapon, then they cannot be trusted to live outside prison. The amendment says “….shall not be infringed…”. Not a word in there about ex felons.

    • avatartheaton says:

      Conway,
      You are no different than the anti-gun people. You are willing to infringe the rights of free men based on your belief that they might do something illegal. Rights may only be infringed if the person infringes the rights of another. Once their debt to society is paid, they are again free men. Do you also believe that if that convicted felon is intent on doing harm again, your ban on his rights will stop him from obtaining a firearm? If a person is to dangerous to have all of their rights restored, they either need to be in jail or have a chaperone! I just can’t understand how so many people pretend they support the rights of the individual.

  6. avatarG.Fincher says:

    R Hampton – define “mentally ill”. Who decides? I don’t trust any of these “reasonable” & “common sense” measures.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      ‘mentally ill’ is a slippery slope. watch out.

    • avatarR Hampton says:

      Lets start with those who suffer from frequent hallucinations and/or schizophrenia.

      Yes mental illness is too vague a term. I would propose that the AMA or some similar organization develop a list of specific conditions. As a general rule of thumb, if the mental condition prevents them from safely operating a vehicle, then it’s likely they can not safely handle a firearm.

      • avatarbrian says:

        They have, it’s called the DSM.

        And they are in the process of putting together the fifth version, which turns just about every emotion into a diagnosable item. Feel bad because your mom died five years ago? There’s a code for that.

        I don’t like the idea of lunatics getting guns, but we don’t have “pre-crime” here. Unless there is a fault-proof method of determining that someone poses an imminent threat of violent harm, there’s not much we are allowed to do to strip them of their rights.

        The problem with letting the politicians add a mental health exception is that just like with the whole “three felonies a day” thing, they’ll keep expanding the boundaries of mentally ill to include everyone.

      • avatarJake says:

        The fact that you’re unaware such a list has existed and been greatly expanded to include virtually every human emotion over the last 50 years is telling. It’s kind of the same reason lefties keep calling for things to be banned that are already banned.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      If the triggering event is commitment to an inpatient mental health facility because you’re a danger to yourself or others, this gets much simpler.

      72-hour psych hold, initial cause upheld by reviewing physician = 30 day disqualification

      3-30 day stay = 60 day disqualification, petition for revocation of disqual after that

      Violent behavior associated with mental illness leading to >72 hr involuntary commitment = permanent disqual unless revoked by courts

  7. avatarChaz says:

    or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage.

    Sounds like sophistry, assuming the premise that guns are bad. Arguably the “collateral damage,” still talking about the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, was due to the school being unable to provide any meaningful protection. As the NRA noted the well to do and well connected send their children to Sidwell Friends et. al. where there is a bona fide private police force. Public schools don’t have this perhaps because the students there are considered by the elite to be expendable? Trying to blame anything on high capacity magazines etc. is just a way to duck responsibility.

    The grabbers seem to be a latter day Marie Antoinette: “guns? let them hire bodyguards.”

    • avatarWC says:

      Sidwell Friends has armed security because the students are at greater risk of kidnapping because of their parents’ wealth or power. On the other hand, poor inner city schools often have armed security because of gang violence. Most suburban and rural schools lack armed security not because those students are considered by the elite to be expendable, but because the risk is considered low.

      • avatarjwm says:

        The risk was considered low at Sandy Hook. The risk is always considered low until a tragedy happens. I was at an elementary school yesterday, no fences, no locked doors and the only security was the crossing guard and unarmed female principol, sort of like the brave lady at Sandy Hook.

        At that school a nutjob with Biden’s acceptable double barreled shotgun could have done as much if not more damage than at Sandy Hook.

        But their efforts really aren’t about protecting the kids. If that truly were their goal, they’re at the very least, incompetent.

        Biden and Feinstein and barry could achieve much more in protecting our kids by concentrating on school security. It would take no wheres near the effort of futile gun control attempts and it would actually have an effect.

        • avatarWC says:

          But mass shootings don’t happen just at schools. That 15 year-old that killed his family last week was planning to take his AR-15 to Walmart. Theaters and malls have been targeted. Even if we put armed security everywhere, they can only stop the madmen after they’ve started their murderous sprees. Enhanced background checks and safe storage requirements aim to protect every location, before the shooting starts.

  8. avatarAharon says:

    If people are going to go on PM show they need to be prepared to take control away from PM’s overly aggressive, domineering and rude interview style. So far, I have only seen Ben Shapiro do it and he made PM look like a doofus.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      My thoughts exactly. If I were ever on his show and trust me I will never be on his show, I would start by saying something like: “Since PM has a habit of asking questions and never allowing his guests to complete their answer, I will provide complete answers to every question on XYZ website.” At this point I don’t know why anyone would voluntarily appear on his show. Whenever I see one of these PM video clips I typically resist the temptation to view it since it will only serve to aggravate me. I like the Newt so I suffered through it this time.

  9. avatarJason says:

    I live next to the shooters shop, over-priced anyway. I won’t be giving them business anymore.

    • avatarBill says:

      “Nugent said he and his staff have turned down plenty of people who don’t look suitable to buy a gun, even after they pass the mandatory background check. He described a small woman who wanted to buy a .45-caliber revolver. That’s a heavy gun, Nugent said, adding there’s no way she was buying that for herself. So he wouldn’t sell it to her.” – Article about the Shooters Shop.

      Oh, so he’s that kind of store owner too. Dick. It’s his store, but who is he to determine what a customer needs when a customer expresses intrest and intent on a certain firearm? My my little lady, you are a girl so you can’t have a .45, here take this Lady’s Derringer. Dick.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        He wasn’t assessing her need. He was assessing her intent and he believed her intent was to make a straw purchase. As a responsible businessman he made the decision not to make the sale. The gun was his property and he exercised his property rights. There are more things in the Constitution than just the Second Amendment.

  10. avatartron says:

    Can’t get behind restoring gun ownership rights to violent felons. With you everywhere else.

  11. avatarAharon says:

    ‘Rahm Emanuel to Bully Banks Into Cutting Off Gun Companies’

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/25/rahm-emanuel-to-bully-banks-into-cutting-off-gun-companies-n1497831

    An individual person or a company cannot be for freedom, liberty, and the 2A while also doing business with the big banks that are members of the Federal Reserve a private banking cartel.

  12. avatarJim Barrett says:

    I, too, have had a problem with the felon thing, but for me, it comes down to the type of felony committed. Getting busted for felony embezzlement doesn’t suggest to me that you are a high risk individual from a gun perspective. If you used a gun in a crime, different story. Sorry, don’t care how old you were when you did it, but if you committed an armed offense, no more guns for you ever.

    That said, I’d be careful to define what armed offense is. For example, if a NH resident drives over the border to MA and forgets about the AK-47 he had in his trunk and then gets busted by the Staties, sure that’s a gun crime felony, but in my mind, that would not keep him from restoration of gun rights in the future. Only if you use a gun to commit a crime (or you are convicted of a violent crime against another person whether or not a gun was involved) should the ban be permanent.

    • avatarEvan says:

      At this point I’m pretty much willing to say that if you still can’t trust em with a gun, they should still be stuck in jail.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      If you believe a convicted felon is too dangerous to legally own a gun, then why the HELL are you letting them out of prison to commit more crimes? Either they are rehabilitated and get all of their rights or they are a threat to society and stay in jail.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Mr. Barrett,
      Regarding your example: “For example, if a NH resident drives over the border to MA and forgets about the AK-47 he had in his trunk and then gets busted by the Staties, sure that’s a gun crime felony, but in my mind, that would not keep him from restoration of gun rights in the future.”

      If all were right in the cosmos, Federal Law would pre-empt state bans on the AK, etc. and the US AG would be investigating those attempting to enforce such bans for conspiracy to deprive US cititzens of their rights. But that’s just me, I have a funny way of looking at things.

  13. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Shooters Shop does a good job. They had the unfortunate experience of selling the Temple shooting gun though. The place is well staffed with friendly people, not much else to say except they need some more guns on the emptying shelves, Randy

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Seriously? You call banning people from buying a gun unless the store owner thinks the model or caliber is “appropriate” for them is doing a good job?

  14. avatarJamie in ND says:

    Good job, Newt, you finished real strong against that sniveling, libiot, british freak. Piers, get the hell out of America if you hate guns, there’s PLENTY of gun free(supposedly) options around the globe for you.

  15. avatarcrndl says:

    hey, what’s the music on “A little fun with a Suppressed Mini Uzi Submachine Gun” ? sounds like bryan ferry…?

  16. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    Automatic firearms are not illegal in the United States, so both Newt and that lowlife scumbag COMMIE loving piece of shit are both wrong. Check out this link to what states allow machine guns, and it’s funny how it’s legal to posses a machine gun in most of the country with the proper permits. http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=154

  17. avatarchris says:

    I hate when piers says founding father… Anyone who says ” do honestly believe the founding fathers…” is a retard. They obviously don’t recall the founding fathers as leaders of then enlightenment and prominent inventors, who would most likely love the designs of modern weaponry.

  18. avatarEsh325 says:

    “restoring felons’ gun rights.” Well that’s something the vast majority of people even gun people will never see eye to eye with you on that, but you have the right to think that.

    • avatarAsh says:

      Like he said he’s a 2nd Amendment absolutists. The government doesn’t get to pick and choose which rights to take away out of our contract with the Nation. They want to make a change? Hell, the 28 amendment is just laying around waiting to to proposed…take your chance. Until then, “shall not be infringed.”

  19. avatarNelson says:

    “I’m a Second Amendment absolutist. No to background checks, mandatory firearms training and paperwork. Yes to machine guns and restoring felons’ gun rights.”

    Farago, Aaron Zelman (RIP) would’ve been proud of you.

    But Aaron most definitely WILL NOT be happy with current Milquetoast direction of JPFO for ‘willing to ‘settle’ on the soon to be linked to Obamacare patient registry, the “neurological-prohibition”/those deemed mentally unfit (er…yeah, ‘crazy’ to be arbitrarily determined by REAL crazies in govt, psychiatry (NOT a real science) & social work field) no-buy list.

    The List, the Database is what the tyrants are ALWAYS after.

    For now, the AWB 2013 has little chance of passing. That, is why there are sh*t loads of state-level move to give the idiot sheeple populace the semblance of ‘groundswell’ of local ‘support for gun control.’

    The ‘compromise’ is where all the tyrannical move lies. So the real question all the armed intelligentsia should be concerned with is: What will they ‘settle’ on?

    A medical database, which becomes the de facto gun registry.

    But let’s not kid ourselves: NICS checks are kept permanently. Lest the gunnies forget what a computer harddrive/buffer/cache look like.

    As with most things govt, they always violate 1st, then pass ‘laws’ to legitimize what they’ve been doing all along, to give the appearance of transparency and ‘lawful’ compliance: AT&T NSA datahub in San Francisco ring a bell? Well, that didn’t begin under GWB: that’s been active since Clinton’s 1996 Telecommunications Act.

    So, if DHS-TSA’s No-Flylist that actually flagged Sen. Ted Kennedy (LOL!) is of any indication, what chance do you suppose any of you would have in getting off it, WHEN you’re put on the ‘list’ out of a govt agent/agency/shrink’s spite, clerical error, etc, unless you’re a Senator?

    The “Mentally-Impaired No Gunbuy List” is a red herring: keep the pressure on NRA and your reps to NOT ‘settle’ for a shared database.

    That database, since the enactment of Obamacare, will become the de facto gun registry.

    Just you watch.

    • avatarEvan says:

      What will they even need a registry for? Just wait for another hurricane to hit and they will start kicking in doors New Orleans style.

  20. avatarEvan says:

    “The Origons of a movement” I suppose this is where they explain slavery, bigotry, and Jim Crow laws right?

  21. avatarTotenglocke says:

    From the article about the Shooters Shop guy – “He described a small woman who wanted to buy a .45-caliber revolver. That’s a heavy gun, Nugent said, adding there’s no way she was buying that for herself. So he wouldn’t sell it to her.”

    Seriously? What a to total Feinstein level jackass. So he believes that he’s all knowing for what calibers people should prefer to shoot and you’re only allowed to buy what he thinks you should shoot? I seriously hope this guy goes out of business soon.

  22. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    I’m going to give myself a stroke or a heart attack watching Piers Morgan much longer. The level of hubris, ignorance and propaganda that gets vomited from his limey mouth is borderline comical if it wasn’t so serious. What a scumbag.

  23. avatargen4n9 says:

    I am also a Second Amendment absolutist. I would except restriction during probation and that’s about it.

    I would think that if someone was believed to be so dangerous that they couldn’t possess a firearm, that people would be far more concerned with letting them have access to children, motor vehicles or alcohol, long before they would be worried about firearms.

    If it was up to me, prohibition on firearms would be a thing of the past. Of course I also except that it is a fundamental human right to possess arms, so I don’t believe that it is within the authority of the government to restrict that right in the first place.

  24. avatarRandomString says:

    Newt starts off the conversation with incorrect information. It is NOT illegal to own an automatic rifle.

  25. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I tried to post this 5 hours ago, at about 2230, but I was on my phone and the f*cking YouTube videos in the comments broke the whole damn post again. So annoying.

    The last link is broken, here’s the correct one: http://cowboybyte.com/18063/14-year-old-girl-speaks-on-2nd-amendment-rights-in-nh-congress/#ixzz2J3MmsmXX

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      What devices/browsers are people using that YouTube videos in the comments break the posts? Android with Chrome chugs along just fine.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I’m running ICS 4.0.4 on a Samsung Galaxy SII Skyrocket.

        I don’t use Chrome. I usually use Dolphin, but the videos break the basic preloaded web browser, too. With Dolphin, the posts are fairly readable (usually), but everything basically comes to a halt when I hit reply. With the basic browser, they’re not even readable. They load very, very slowly, and as I scroll down, I get graphical glitches, and eventually the browser freezes.

        When these slowdowns happen, in both browsers, my CPU usage increases, and my memory usage absolutely skyrockets. For example, a normal TTAG page open in my browser has the memory usage at 75-90MB. Opening 4-5 TTAG posts in separate tabs (assuming no videos in the comments) causes my memory usage to be in the neighborhood of 110-125MB total. When the inline comment freezes happen, with only one page open, I’ve seen memory usage of over 650 MB, prior to a forced browser shutdown.

  26. avatarJoseph says:

    To hell with you, and the likes of you, Mr. King.

  27. avatarRich says:

    Not one prohibition on the mentally ill buying, and operating, the largest weapon available to just about anyone. No age needed if use on your own property, no picture or fingerprints, criminal felons allowed, no limit on quanity, etc. What is this deadly weapon? A motor vehicle is capable of hundreds of thousands of foot-pounds of kinectic energy. One can drive around a school playground killing with impunity until it runs out of gas and or kill you and your family on the road by being a drunk drivers or by a mental case willing to kill himself and go out big hitting a bus at 120 mph.
    Where as an AR -15 is limitd to around 1,400 foot-pounds of kinet energy at the muzzle.

  28. avatarRich says:

    If a felon is out in the public and allowed to own a car he should be allowed to own a gun. If he can’t be trusted with that he should not be out of prision.

  29. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    Does anyone else notice when Pierce speaks and you pause the video and look close he has this brown liquid that appears to be spewing from his lips, I thought it was not a big deal till I saw the undigested corn and peanuts.

  30. avatarMartin says:

    Regarding restoring felons’ rights – where I live, those rights get restored depending on what the felon did, what his/her sentence was and how he behaved later. To give you some examples:
    A murderer who has been sentenced to more than 12 years never gets gun rights back.
    A rapist who has been sentenced to 8 years get his gun rights back 20 years after leaving prison, provided he commits no other crimes.
    Certain minor crimes cost one most gun rights for 5 years.
    And an ex-drug user gets his gun rights back after three years of staying clean.

    Oh, and anybody but mentally ill and such is free to purchase so called class-
    D weapons, whic include things like pre-1891 guns, certain crossbows and so on.

    Maybe a similar system could be acceptable to some of those who do want to give gun rights to more people but are afraid of giving them to those likely to commit crimes again.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.